Meerkatjie – a rather nasty censor

Petworth House, Petworth, West Sussex, England, September 2012

Petworth House, Petworth, West Sussex, England, September 2012

In her final post for over a week here was Meerkatjie playing the censor: 

My basic dispute has been with the claim of primacy. I then got rather annoyed with Bitethehand / Klavier telling me I held views I hadn’t expressed.

Now why would anyone who joined CiF identify Klavier4 with Bitethehand, other than to get Klavier4 banned?

I had posted on CiF as  klavier4 from 29 November 2010 until  29 January 2011 and it was my longest uninterrupted spell under a single moniker since Bitethehand. I had previously encountered Meerkatjie just once and I wrote about that here.

On You Tell Us on 27 November 2011, Backtothepoint and kizbot were exchanging views with BTTP trying to equate his Palestinian suicide bombers with regular armed forces governed by international rules of engagement.

I had challenged him to “provide us with one example of a military commander who has instigated a military action with the sole intent of killing the customers of high street restaurants or workers on their way to work on the public bus?”

The following day I had posted in response to his posts:

You display a stubborn insistence on refusing to recognise that the intent of the suicide bomber is quite different to that of conventional military personnel, whose first intent is to survive. And that survival means the possibility of facing international laws that govern military action and having to live with the consequences of their action. That goes for the humble foot soldier and the Commander in Chief. The war in Iraq has provided us with examples of the former and as we watch the outcome of Blair’s appearances before Chilcot, to some extent even the latter.

At this point, Meerkatjie joined the discussion with:

Are you quite sure of this? Surely if their first intent is to survive, they’d be needlepointing at home? To suggest that the military aren’t trained to kill, and that they do not intend to do so seems a little disingenuous. “I became a soldier, but I didn’t think killing would be involved.”? Nah, come on.

If this is an example of Meerkatjie‘s poverty of understanding, I pity her poor students whose work she marks. Not one person on that thread and certainly not me had suggested “the military aren’t trained to kill“.

I replied to this piece of contempt and ignorance with:

Then perhaps you’d enlighten us all on the use to the military of dead soldiers, the waste of the time and money spent training them and the impact on the morale of their comrades?

Only this week we read about the self-sacrifice of <b>Private Martin Bell</b> who disregarded a direct order not to help a stricken comrade because his own life would be at risk. The young paratrooper rushed to administer first aid and was killed when another booby-trap bomb exploded.

His commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Harrison, said:

‘The term “hero” is overused in contemporary commentary; take a moment to reflect on the image of Martin Bell, who disobeyed a direct order in order to render life-saving first aid to his colleague.’

Do you still think it’s disingenuous?

Meerkatjie replied to claim that I said that soldiers somehow don’t INTEND to kill,  (I wrote their first intent was to survive) which for an academic shows a remarkable lack of reading skills.

At this point up came BeautifulBurnout to try to rescue poor Ms Meerkatjie with:


Strawman alert! Strawman alert!

I don’t recall Meerkatjie saying anything of the kind.

She simply suggested that if the first intent of soldiers was self-preservation, they would have stayed at home to do needlepoint.”

No one up to that point had mentioned “self-preservation

I corrected her with:

“She responded to my claim that in contrast to the suicide bomber, the first intent of conventional military personnel was to survive, with the following statements:”

“Are you quite sure of this? Surely if their first intent is to survive, they’d be needlepointing at home?”


Yes, but your post still bears no relevance to my point – that if their FIRST INTENT was to survive, they’d have stayed at home with their knitting.

Now I think we can all agree that serving soldiers don’t have the option of going home to their knitting or any other hobby whenever they feel their lives might be threatened. And of course it’s an insult to their professionalism to suggest they might. As such Meerkatjie comments are both cynical and fatuous.

But maybe you know of British military strategists who advocate a different approach? One perhaps where loss of life of their own men and women is considered unimportant?

Of course neither the university academic or the barrister could come up with a single name.

Let me leave the final word to katie60


The surreal quality of the debate you’re having with Cif’s deluded browbeaters is par for the course on these pages.

The inability of supposedly smart individuals to distinguish between suicide bombers and professional soldiers is just flat-out stupid. The inability to distinguish between the actions and motives of suicide bombers and professional soldiers is flat-out pernicious.

And the combination of pseudo and ignorant comment, laced with the likes of meerkatjie’s ridiculously laboured condescension and backtothepoint’s infantile allegiance to communism, is flat-out blogging fuckwittery.

This is why Meerkatjie is in the Hall of Shame.

%d bloggers like this: